Today, Dan and Jordan soldier forward through the exceedingly stupid Alex Jones "documentary" Endgame. In this installment, the gents wrap up some Nazi talk, get pretty sick of Alex's shit, then Dan breaks down the 1934 film Tomorrow's Children.
The voice you will hear shortly is my co-host and dear friend Jordan.
This is part four of our five-part coverage of Alex Jones' very generous to call it a documentary, but we'll go ahead since that's the naming convention he came up with.
His film, his flick, Endgame, that's the name of it.
Drew Blank there for a second.
I've been doing nothing but researching.
Recording and editing about this documentary for the last two, three weeks, and yet still can't come up with the name on the spot.
Anyway, guys, where we last left off on episode three, we were in the middle of some Nazi talk.
And as promised at the end of the last episode, that Nazi talk continues at the beginning of this episode.
But there's not too much left of it.
Look forward to us to get into some other bullshit Alex is lying about, a couple of quotes that he's faking.
A couple more quotes that he's faking.
And then, I'll be honest, this part four, this is where I think I started to lose it.
I think I got a little bit mad in the middle.
I think I gathered myself decently, but there might be some cracks starting to show here in what would be hour seven of me and Jordan sitting around and recording this nonsense.
I'm just saying it's naive to think that the American government did not protect genociders.
Considering our history of protecting genociders, as well as our desire for knowledge and the immense need at the time to defeat the Russians in developing whatever, of course they protected genociders.
There's a bunch of rebuttals that I would have to that, and a number of them involve the idea that a lot of people who had access to the research that was being done The crimes against humanity.
And so a lot of people were immune from prosecution and didn't actually commit war crimes, and the United States could have swallowed them up.
Most of the people who were involved in Project Paperclip, a lot of the Nazi scientists who came over, like Wernher von Braun, were people who were in unrelated areas.
They weren't involved with the exterminations and crimes against humanity.
The Nuremberg trials were specifically set up in such a way to only prosecute for a couple different things that were within the spectrum of the court, the purview of the court, what was in their jurisdiction.
And I obviously don't think they had 100% accuracy, but I don't think that someone like Mengele would have escaped prosecution.
Oh, yeah.
Alex Jones said specifically singular prosecution.
And they used his name, but because of just some sort of fuck-up with record-keeping, they were like, oh, you're not one of the people we were looking for.
He got released and ended up escaping to South America.
Like, the luck that he had in terms of that, it's just...
There were only a couple people who were like, we're going to try you even though you're dead or you're gone.
Something like that.
But here's the thing.
The Nuremberg trials were incredibly complicated.
Oh!
The first thing to keep in mind when you talk about the Nuremberg trials is there's a jurisdictional issue that it was only limited to war crimes, crimes against humanity, waging wars of aggression, and a crime of that variety.
Considered under those guidelines, there's no reason to think that Otmar von Verscher would have been found guilty or was even deserving of the court's attention.
What he did, we rightly can look back on as grotesque and awful now, but it didn't rank with the Nuremberg trials.
At the time, there was the appearance that he was just a scientist who benefited from receiving some samples from Mengele in Auschwitz.
But not in any way an active participant in any of that.
But history calls that into question a little bit.
So here's the thing.
Von Verscher was Mengele's doctoral advisor or whatever coming up.
He was sort of a mentor, and Von Verscher had a completely separate research institute, and he may have received some samples from Mengele.
No, so there's no reason why he ever would have been brought up.
Now, again, in hindsight, we can look back and be like, hey, we might add that one a little while.
He was probably way more guilty than we know.
It's kind of like, so, the way I look at it is, it's kind of like the way people look at Tonya Harding.
Like, at the time, and for a while, people saw her as just a victim, and she had no involvement with Galuli and his actions, but now, in hindsight, we realize she was fucking involved.
There's no doubt she was involved with that shit.
So there's something like, it's too little, too late, you can't do anything about it.
The reason that Jeff Galluli hit Nancy Kerrigan was that Nancy Kerrigan was probably going to make the Olympic team, and there was only so much room on that team.
So in 1946 and 47, there was a doctor's trial of Nazi scientists, and this would also not have succeeded in finding Otmar von Verscher guilty of any of the charges that were in the jurisdiction of that court.
The charges they were able to make were crimes against humanity, war crimes, Performing medical experiments without the subject's consent on prisoners of war and civilians of occupied countries, in the course of which the experiments and the defendants committed murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures, atrocities, and other inhuman acts.
Also planning and performing the mass murder of prisoners of war and civilians of occupied countries stigmatized as aged, insane, incurably ill, deformed, and so on by gas, lethal injections, and diverse other means in nursing homes, hospitals, and asylums during the euthanasia programs, and participating in the mass murder of prisoners of war.
murder of concentration camp inmates.
And the other crime they could have charged them with was membership in the SS.
The Allies then smuggled thousands of Nazi scientists out of Germany and placed them in key scientific positions, ranging from bioweapons to rocketry throughout the military-industrial complex.
But the problem that I have with it is that IBM, they did provide punch card technology that bordered on...
But the real problem is not that they gave them support.
It's that they didn't stop supporting the Germans when the Holocaust happened.
The business relationship between Germany and IBM and the company that it was before, which was a German company, predated the rise of Hitler by 23 years.
They were already doing all this business in Germany and just didn't stop.
And that part is incredibly fucked up.
And Thomas Watson should be deeply ashamed of himself.
And the way you're even saying it, think about it year by year.
The difference between like...
36 and 37, or 37 and 38, 38 and 39, 39 and 40. The difference between those years in terms of perspective, what was publicly available information, it's very difficult to wrestle with.
I think there is some sort of responsibility, I believe, that exists for these business people who are doing business with them to have some sort of oversight of like, what are we contributing to?
UN Chieftain and unrepentant eugenicist Julian Huxley argued that since the leaders of eugenics had founded the environmental and conservation movements, that they should be used as vehicles in the formation of a world government.
For 30 years he's been wracked by the guilt of knowing I wrote this amazing best-selling book that was actually me stealing the plans of the wealthy and now, finally, in this charming speech I can say, I admit it.
And here I would like briefly to compare the parable of Brave New World with another parable which was put forth more recently in George Orwell's book, 1984.
The scientific dictatorships of the future, and I think there are going to be scientific dictatorships in many parts of the world, will be probably a good deal nearer to the Brave New World pattern than to the 1984 pattern.
They will be a good deal nearer, not because of any humanitarian qualms in the scientific dictators, but simply because the Brave New World pattern is probably a good deal more efficient than the other.
If you can get people to consent to the state of affairs in which they are living, the state of servitude, the state of being, well, it seems to me that the nature of the ultimate revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this, that we are in process of developing...
Alex made a cut right before he said, it seems to me, what we're talking about with the revolution.
And the reason he calls it the ultimate revolution is because it's the revolution where we will be able to change ourselves as opposed to external forces changing us.
So the difference there, and if you're Aldous Huxley, I suppose that his main difference between the two of them would be...
When Aldous Huxley is writing Brave New World, he believes that human beings are capable of breaking through, of taking off of that kind of blind, drugged-out, blissed-out love and finding something better in the future.
Whereas Orwell is like, people, if you beat the shit out of them long enough, they're going to love you no matter what you do.
Aldix's take on 1984 is that it was a product of the time it was written in, and that the authoritarian, totalitarian fears of the time informed his version of the scary state, as opposed to...
A whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy, who have always existed and presumably always will exist, to get people actually...
To love their servitude.
People can be made to enjoy a state of affairs which, by any decent standard, they ought not to enjoy.
And these methods, I think, are a real refinement on the older methods of terror because they combine methods of terror with methods of...
Of acceptance.
But then there are various other methods that one can think of.
There is, for example, the pharmacological method.
This was one of the things I talked about in Brave New World.
And the result would be that, I mean, you can imagine a euphoric which would make people thoroughly happy even in the most abominable circumstances.
The literal end of the speech is him saying that now that we have all these capabilities, it is our great task to make sure that all this technology is used to make sure human dignity is protected.
The elite have left a massive wave of destruction behind them as they cold-bloodedly experiment on civilian populations as if we are lab rats.
A string of congressional investigations has uncovered more than 20,000 secret tests that were carried out against the American people between 1910 and 2000.
The federal government commissioned secret radiation experiments on thousands of non-consenting patients.
Hundreds of hospitals in the U.S. injected healthy men, women, and children with uranium and plutonium at dosage levels ranging from non-therapeutic to lethal, killing many of the test subjects.
From 1951 to 1961, the U.S. Army paid Israel's health ministry 3 million lira to conduct radiation testing on Sephardic children that immigrated to Israel.
The government-run public schools would tell the children that they were going to get a medical checkup and that they were receiving an x-ray.
The Pentagon had already radiated more than 4,000 institutionalized children in the United States, many of which had died.
So this was a documentary which is used by Mizrahi Jews, Jews that were descended from the Middle East, as evidence of injustices they suffered immigrating to Israel in the 1950s.
There were almost definitely very severe issues with their integration into Israeli society, but this is a pretty bad example of it.
The film claims that at least 100,000 Mizrahi Jews were subjected to radiation levels thousands of times beyond the maximum recommended dose for treatment of ringworms.
However, the documented dosages given to Israeli children were similar to, if not less than, those administered to about 2,000 children treated for ringworm at New York University Hospital between 19...
So it was about using radiation to treat ringworm with immigrants in the 1950s in Israel.
And that protocol was based on a campaign from 1921 to 1938 among Jews in Eastern Europe.
That is, mostly among Ashkenazi Jews.
In the course of which, 27,000 Eastern European children were irradiated in identical fashion, in part to allow their families to emigrate, since Ringworm was grounds for exclusion for immigrants to the United States and elsewhere.
The folks running the program in the 1950s believed that that previous campaign had been successful and wanted to offer the treatment to the Mizrahi immigrants, as well as Oh, no.
And it's not like that happened, like the head and neck tumors happened to everybody, so some of the people who survived may have not had that, and even if they did, they might have thought it was a side effect of living through whatever irradiation or tests that were done to them in the Holocaust.
Generally speaking, ringworm was much more prevalent among immigrant populations in the early 1900s because the means of transportation were so cumbersome.
They ended up traveling and being held in really cramped quarters and hygiene was terrible back then.
As Israel was just forming in 1948, that led to...
meant increased incidence of ringworm, and this increased radiation treatments.
You can see the tragic end result of bad medicine here, but not a coordinated attack on anybody.
We had tons of immigrants that came to Ellis Island.
They didn't get irradiated.
So we didn't have that same result here because if you were found to have ringworm, which they would check for looking in people's scalps and what have you, and if you did, you were deemed unfit and sent back – To wherever you came from.
The covert testing of chemical, biological, and radiological agents on unsuspecting populations continues worldwide today.
From 1940 to 1979, the vast majority of the British population was sprayed by aircraft more than 2,000 times with deadly chemicals and microorganisms without ever being told.
In 1968, the Pentagon tested a deadly bioweapon on New York subways and placed personnel in local hospitals to monitor the effects.
The United States and England are currently testing pesticides and highly toxic experimental drugs on tens of thousands of healthy foster children, many of which die as a result of the experiments.
Prisons across the nation have forced inmates to participate in grisly experiments, ranging from pesticides to dioxin.
So this is from a book he wrote called The Impact of Science in Society.
And it's taken from a passage where Russell is describing the horrors that could come into the world were the Nazis to have won World War II.
He's clearly and very specifically talking negatively about how things could become a dystopia very quickly if a totalitarian state were to apply scientific principles.
Some context.
A quote.
A totalitarian government with...
Government with scientific bent might do things that to us would seem horrifying.
The Nazis were more scientific than the present rulers of Russia and were more inclined towards the sort of atrocities that I have in mind.
If they had survived, they would probably have soon taken to selective breeding.
Any nation which adopts this practice will, within a generation, secure great military advantages.
The system one may surmise will be something like this.
Except possibly in the governing aristocracy, all but 5% of the males and 30% of the females will be sterilized.
The 30% of females will be expected to spend the years from 18 to 40 in reproduction in order to secure adequate cannon fodder.
As a rule, artificial insemination will be preferred to the natural method.
Gradually by selective breeding the congenital differences between ruler and ruled will increase until they become almost different species.
A revolt of the plebs will become as unthinkable...
the practice of eating mutton there's the quote such possibilities on any large scale may seem a fantastic nightmare but i firmly believe that if the nazis had won the last war and if in the end they had acquired world supremacy they would before long have established a system as i have been suggesting to prevent these scientific uh as i've been suggesting to prevent these scientific horrors democracy is necessary but not sufficient there must also be that kind of respect for
So to flash forward a little bit.
Quote, there is a tendency which is inevitable and less consciously combated for organizations to coalesce and so to increase in size until ultimately almost all become merged into the state.
A scientific oligarchy, accordingly, is bound to become what is called totalitarian.
That is to say, all important forms of power will become a monopoly of the state.
This monolith system has sufficient merits to be attractive to many people, but to my mind, its demerits are far greater than its merits.
Flashing forward a little bit more to page 49. I think the evils that have grown up in the Soviet Russia will exist in a greater or less degree wherever there is scientific government which is...
H.G. Wells, Aldous Huxley, Bertrand Russell, and hundreds of other eugenicists constantly bragged about how the establishment believed themselves to be a separate, more advanced species than the common man.
Top eugenicists were bold enough to admit that their real goal was not improving the Look at those pants.
Nobel Prize winner Russell wrote at length about how vaccinations filled with mercury and other brain-damaging compounds would induce partial chemical lobotomies and develop a servile zombie population.
unidentified
Nope!
Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine from a very early age to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable.
And any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.
By 2007, more than 20% of the U.S. population were on some type of prescription antidepressant.
But in the case of foster children, a sector where the state has total control, Not really.
I feel like that's not true.
Psychotropic.
and shocked the public when he said that two-thirds of foster children in Texas had been placed on psychiatric drugs because they were very, very sick.
From a bad gene pool.
unidentified
A lot of these kids come from bad gene pools.
They don't have stable parents making good decisions.
Besides the gene pools, they've then been traumatized by abuse, neglect, and problems, and then they've been traumatized by separation, and all those things predisposed to mental illness.
That was like, oh man, that's such a guy raised in a place where they say the N-word all the time, trying to do his nice, like he's trying to be like, look, I'm just saying that the cultural pressures, and then he just keeps using the N-word a bunch, but at the same time, he's never, it's like, no, it's about all that society has done to all these people, and he keeps saying the N-word a bunch, and he's like, no.
A review of the current literature on the mental health issues of children and youth in foster care revealed that said children are at a greater risk, approximately 80% of having psychological, social, and developmental delays as compared to children in the general population, approximately 18 to 20%.
The regularity and severity of emotional problems among children in foster care seem strongly related to their history of deprivation, neglect, and abuse, and the lack of security and permanence in any of their lives.
Rates that you see in children in foster care expressing specific mental issues make some of this clearer.
When you look at post-traumatic stress disorder, it's 21.5% in foster children as opposed to 4.5% in the general population.
Panic disorder, 11.4% versus 3.6% in the general population.
Anxiety disorder generally, 9.4% versus 5.1%.
Drug dependence, 3.6% versus 0.5%.
These are the sorts of things you would expect to see in elevated levels compared to the general population, seeing as most people are not put into foster care unless there's something traumatic that happened in their young childhood.
Here's another study that I found that was really interesting.
A 2012 study by the National Survey of Children's Health found that children living in non-parental care were substantially more likely to have experienced, quote, adverse family experiences in childhood.
They found that 70% of children living with two biological parents in the household experienced zero such events, compared to 18.7% of children living in households with zero biological parents.
percent compared to 81.3 percent of children who had experienced one such event.
So there's that shift there.
But...
The big difference comes when you look at children who experienced multiple events.
Children living with two biological parents had a.9% incidence of experiencing four or more events, compared to 29.9% for children living with no biological parents.
That's an almost 3,000% increase.
When you separate out kids in foster care, so you exclude people who are living with their grandparents or something like that, you find a 48.3% More or more adverse family events in young childhood and a 15.7% of none.
This is so statistically relevant.
It's such nonsense and so cruel to imagine, like, nah, we're just trying to drug these kids up.
It's so fucked up to imagine that, like, Alex Jones is a big fan of the Bundys and is so cool with Lavoie Finnecombe, the guy who got shot during the Wildlife Preserve standoff, when he had a child farm.
He raised money by having foster children.
I imagine he wasn't taking great care of them.
I imagine not all of them stayed there for all that long.
He was probably a part of the problem.
Alex is thrilled to just ignore that and point a finger at the aftermath.
The Western world is now implementing eugenics pre-crime policies.
Fetuses are now being pre-screened according to family histories of crime.
From Portland, Oregon to London, England, Child Protective Services are enrolling newborn children into criminal databases at birth and forcing them to attend probation hearings at age two.
The operation plan titled National Security Study Memorandum 200 was simply a regurgitation of the British Commission on Population created by King George VI of England in 1944, which openly stated that populous third world nations posed a threat to the international elite's monopoly of global power.
This study should focus on the international political and economic implications of population growth rather than its ecological, sociological, or other aspects.
The memo internally even shows that it's possible the end result of the study would be that nothing needs to be done.
Quote, what, if any, new initiatives by the U.S. are needed to focus international attention on population problems?
Kissinger recommended that IMF and World Bank loans be given on condition that nations initiate aggressive population control programs, such as sterilization.
Kissinger also recommended that food be used as a weapon and that instigating wars was also a helpful tool in reducing population.
In 1972, the Nixon White House also implemented a eugenics policy which was directed by George Herbert Walker Bush, then United States Ambassador to the United Nations.
Bush advised China on the formulation of their one-child policy and directed the federal government to forcibly sterilize more than 40% of Native American women on reservations.
So legitimately, the only citation he offers in the bibliography is a transcript of Nixon nominating Bush to be the ambassador to the U.N. in December of 1970.
All these conspiracy blogs are just like, Bush stepped out of the agency and back into his father's role in the international investment bankers world from January 77 through 1980.
He chaired the executive committee of the First International Bank of Houston, then directed the First International Bank Shares Limited in London.
These were both subsidiaries of the InterFirst Group, the largest bank in Texas.
Bush traveled back and forth to London, the hub of the family's permanent place in the British imperial financial and political intrigues.
Intersecting with the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
Peak oil was first theorized by geologist Marion King Hubbard in 1956.
Time has shown that Hubbard's assessment was not really all that accurate, but available information and technologies were not what they are today in 1956, and the underlying principle of what he was warning people about might not be materially incorrect.
While it may be true that we keep developing new ways to extract oil from things, like the tar sands in Alberta, for example, the new methods we develop all come with some form of diminishing returns.
At this point, most experts accept that we've discovered pretty much all of the available, easily extractable oil on the planet.
There's not much more to find.
As such, from this point forward, it's a countdown until the liquid oil reserves start running out, at which point we'll have to take on some additional burdens along with the oil we extract.
Some of that comes out in the form of expense.
Extraction of oil from shale is more expensive because the end product is way less effective as an energy source, so more of it's required to achieve the same goal.
Similarly, creating fuel out of garbage is possible, but it's incredibly expensive.
A barrel of oil costs Saudi Arabia approximately $9 to produce currently, as opposed to about $45 for the United Kingdom to do the same.
Using waste products to do it costs about $80 a barrel.
Beyond the much higher costs of these alternatives, there are expenses in the form of pollution, along with the prices of some of these.
The fracking that's required to access a lot of the more difficult oil reserves that we're finding now has been shown to increase airborne emissions of methane gas, significant danger to contaminate groundwater, and even cause seismic activity.
A further problem that complicates things is that they found in the past that people are lying about discovered reserve figures of oil.
Their motivation to do so is pretty clear, seeing as that it inflates their business's stature, and there's no formal process in place to audit reserves of the claims that people make.
In January 9th of 2004, Shell announced that it had overestimated its proven oil and gas reserves by 20%.
That seems high.
That seems really high.
Easily available oil is really out there right now, and how close we are to having to rely on the diminishing returns.
The bottom line is the Club of Rome did not come up with peak oil.
Further, people making definite predictions about peak oil are kind of dumb, and they generally are a bit off.
But there will come a time when it's all going to be downhill.
The idea of a race-specific bioweapon comes from the 1942 Robert Heinlein science fiction novel The Sixth Column.
Scientists have not seen evidence that anyone has created such a weapon, but the idea of creating a weapon that targets a specific DNA sequence is theoretically possible.
Which is kind of scary.
So, allegations have been made that Israel created a race-specific bioweapon to kill all the Palestinians.
There's a paper called the Sunday Times, and they posted an article claiming Israel was making this weapon in November of 1998.
But, this is likely a complete misreading of a piece of fiction about the very topic that was sent to the paper by science fiction author Doron Stanitsky.
In the aftermath of the release of the article, genetic researchers called the idea wildly fantastical, though conceded it might be theoretically possible.
The Sunday Times planned a follow-up article, but most likely due to poor sourcing and the embarrassing backlash, they never wrote part two.
Also, the authors of the article never have spoken about it publicly.
So the article that was the source for the coverage, there's coverage on, like, Wired and Foreign Report of this.
That's where Alex gets this idea.
Those are the two authors from the Sunday Times who have never spoken about this ever again.
In September of 2000, the Project for the New American Century published a document in which Dick Cheney described race-specific bioweapons as politically useful tools.
He's talking about how combat is going to change in the future and how you're going to end up using drones and stuff like that.
It's like technology is going to advance.
And here's just the actual sentence.
Advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.
This is merely a glimpse of the possibilities inherent in the process of transformation, not a precise possibility.
So what he's saying is that along the way...
of warfare, states may start using biological warfare as a political tool, whereas before it was just in the realm of terrorism.
His assertion that Bill Gates and George Soros and all the usual suspects are trying to kill off everybody is immediately followed by this passage.
Quote, From this point of view, the plan to limit births and force abortions certainly has a magical significance to the astral plane and can be considered as a human sacrifice when done intentionally.
At the end of March 2015, a drone pilot made a shocking discovery.
I was flying my quadcopter over the Georgia Guidestones and found these crazy stains that looked like blood.
Having large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanor in the same way.
Yeah, no, I agree.
unidentified
In the push to reduce global warming, children, according to some of the new culprits, a think tank in the U.K. says too many kids are what's making the planet worse.
And it's children's fault that there are too many kids, right?
unidentified
Two children really should be frowned upon as an environmental no-no, akin to not reusing your plastic bags, driving one of those big gas-guzzling cars, taking long trips overseas.
The U.K., in fact, has negative growth.
I think Canada does too.
that still families in our rich countries shouldn't have more than two kids.
In 1998, Ted Turner pledged to give more than $1 billion to the United Nations to be spent in the implementation of population reduction policies Oh, Ted, you weird fucking lunatic.
This quote right here, a total world population of 250 to 300 million people, a 95% reduction from present levels would be ideal.
This is quoted as being from an interview in Audubon magazine.
This quote is alleged to be from that magazine.
It's not quite accurate and definitely misused.
The actual quote from the magazine from November 1991 was dug up.
And it is screenshotted online.
The quote is, We've got to do it all together.
That's why we have to do away with the word foreign.
We've got to think of each other as neighbors.
Instead of the word foreign, we need to use international.
Whether we like it or not, we're going to swim together or sink together.
We all, five billion of us here on this little earth swimming around in space.
There's too many of us.
And most of us are living incorrectly.
If we had a much smaller population, and over time we could...
Have an ethic where we only had one child and maybe over 300, 400 years we could cut back to 250, 300 million people.
We could replant our cities where there was a central area and you could walk or ride your bike to work so you don't have to drive 30 miles to work like you do in LA.
No, it would actually work out pretty well in terms of the amount of people who just die every day, you know, of natural causes or of accidents and stuff like that.
Ted Turner, like, legitimately is the world's largest owner of bison, largely because he has a restaurant that serves bison and doesn't want other people to be able to have a supply chain.
What's your prescription for how to manage population and thus manage the environment?
Well, we need to have less children.
I believe it needs to be voluntary, but it needs to be encouraged.
There has been tremendous progress.
In 1950, not one single country had a stable population.
They were all growing, all 200 countries.
Now I think 40 or so countries have negative or stable population.
Japan is losing population rapidly, and quite a few other countries are too.
The problem is, at the rate that it's going, we're losing out on the population battle.
In order to have a really healthy long-term future, we need to have about 2.5 billion people.
Compared to?
And he replies, we've got seven, seven and a half billion right now.
That's two and a half, that two and a half billion goal came from Paul Ehrlich, who wrote the population bomb 50 years ago.
The good news is that if families around the world choose to have one child starting right away, we'd move back toward the two and a half billion without any abortions or population control.
All we need to do is use family planning.
Look, I had five children, okay?
But when I had those five children 50 years ago, the world population was...
The idea that he's actually into active depopulation and one-child policy being enforced mostly comes from an article that Paul Joseph Watson wrote on this website called Activist Post.
And it sources back to an article in the Globe and Mail where Ted Turner spoke at an event held by the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
The article asserts that Ted urged a one-child policy, but the quotes that they offer do not reflect that.
In 1999, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gave $2.2 billion to Planned Parenthood, the United Nations Population Fund, and other population reduction groups.
By 2007, the Gates had given more than $30 billion, almost exclusively, to population control groups.
And they gave $900 million towards reproductive health care.
Past that, you end up with about $1.6 billion towards agricultural aid, $375 million towards sanitation projects, among so many fucking other causes, that add up to $21 billion in the last six years that they've given.
Well, it's unlikely that that's the case, because he currently only has $39 billion in assets.
So if he gave $37 billion to charity in 2006, maybe, who knows.
Anyway, here's what I find interesting about this.
The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation donated huge sums to organizations dedicated to contraception and women's health research, specifically the development and accessibility of interuterine devices, IUDs, according to Bloomberg.
In 2013, the Foundation gave away nearly half a billion dollars to organizations supporting reproductive health.
Judith DeSarno, former director of domestic programs for Berkshire Hathaway, Warren's investment fund, said, for Warren, it's economic.
He thinks that unless women can control their fertility, and that it's basically their right to control their fertility, that you're sort of wasting more than half of the brainpower of the United States.
Part of the success includes the contraception program in Colorado, which provided women with free IUDs and resulted in a 40% decline in birth rates among teen moms.
It's an obvious thing because if you want to pull a fucking utilitarian argument, well then actually divorce your utilitarian arguments from all of your racism and bigotry and you're like, oh yeah, well women are equal and we're wasting them.
If you want to pull some sort of like, well women shouldn't make 77 cents on the dollar to men because men need to buy things.
No, get rid of that bullshit.
If you want To make the most.
If you want to be the most productive, recognize that you're wasting half of a woman's life or whatever it is.
Or you're fucking destroying all of this shit just out of your own petty, dumb, sexist, misogynist bullshit.
And then you finally meet a capitalist who is unfortunately the fucking most capitalist.
And he pulls out a utilitarian argument and you're like, no, this guy's evil because he hates women.
I have been dealing with some sort of weird rollercoaster up-and-down anger ride for this whole ten hours we've been fucking doing this, and now he's gonna throw a quote up?
And the quote, in case this doesn't come through in the audio, and actually, I think the world would be much better when there's only ten or twenty percent of us left.
Prominent University of Texas biologist Dr. Eric Bianca, while receiving an award from the Texas Academy of Science, said that the worldwide AIDS pandemic was, quote, no good.
Sounds like sarcasm.
Stating that Bianca was too conservative and that all humans should be killed.
But most frightening was the fact that in a crowd of over 1,000 prominent scientists, local newspapers reported that 95% of those in attendance gave Bianca sustained standing ovations every time he extolled the virtues of mass-culling microbes and man's destruction.
Because I think that there is a commonality in terms of saying things that you can stand behind that are inflammatory in order to sort of provoke argument.
And I think that's kind of his style.
Because I've looked into him a bit, seen some of the positions he's taken, watched some of the interviews that he has.
So, from the transcript of the 1999 speech that this is in reference to, here's some of the text that I was able to find.
But here's what's going to happen.
And after the human population collapses, there's going to be a lot fewer of us.
Food's going to be diminished, pollution's going to go down, which will be good, but there's not going to be much to recover from.
Our descendants are going to curse us for the party we took, the party we had.
And I recommend Richard Heinberg's book, The Party's Over, Oil, War, and the Fate of Industrial Societies.
This man has thought about these things deeply.
The end of oil is good, too, but it's not anywhere as good as The Party's Over.
There have been wise people for a long time.
John Stuart Mill in 1858 took issue with the whole business of grow, grow, grow.
And he said he thought stationary systems made sense, stable systems, where you don't have bubbles that are going to burst and you're going to go bankrupt.
He said he didn't think people had to elbow their way to the top to fight, struggle with each other just to get resources.
That if we could just live in a stable world where we didn't continue to grow and weren't based on this grow, grow, grow thing, that we could work on the art of living and that we would become better human beings for it.
And these are some of the things that Donella Meadows says in the end of Limits to Grow.
And this is the end.
In the 60s, when I started studying ecology, there was a lot of sand at the top of the hourglass.
But in my short stint of 40, 50 years as an ecologist, most of that sand has run out.
There's not much time left that you can get on an airplane, go to Madagascar, and study something while you can.
He's kind of an extreme speaker in terms of some sort of sensationalism and shit like that, but I think he says these things to provoke an intellectual conversation and a reaction out of people.
And that, folks, is where we will need to cut things short for the day.
We have one episode left tomorrow, and we will jump right back in after, as we see at the end of this episode.
Jordan might have found a spiritual kin in Dr. Eric Pianca.
Not entirely sure if that fully tracks.
But we'll be back tomorrow with the thrilling conclusion to the endgame coverage where we have completely lost interest in doing this for the most part.
A couple spoiler alerts for tomorrow.
We finally get into climate change.
And a little bit about transhumanism.
Super fun stuff.
So check out that.
We'll be back with that tomorrow.
But in the meantime, if you'd like to check us out, you can go to knowledgefight.com.
That is our website.
We also are on Twitter.
You can follow us at knowledge underscore fight.
We're on Facebook.
You can check us out there.
Also, we just opened up a new Facebook group where people can get together and chat, have messages, and maybe, I don't know, workshop a meme.
Isn't that what people do?
I have no idea.
Anyway, it's a good place to have some conversations with like-minded policy wonks.
If you'd like to go over there and join up, the name of the group is Go Home and Tell Your Mother You're Brilliant.
If you go and just search for that, you can find it.
Request to join and we'll let you be a member.
Also, we're on iTunes.
You can subscribe, download past episodes, leave us a review.
All those sorts of things were very helpful.
We do appreciate it.
But, yeah, I guess other than that, this has been exhausting, and if you all have stuck around for all of this endgame coverage, we appreciate it, and it will be done after tomorrow.
So, thanks again, and we'll catch you on the flip side.